By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Why third party core games fail(ed) on the Wii

Galaki on 26 September 2010
Asriel said:

Monster Hunter Tri sales were bad by the standards of the series? It's the best selling home console Monster Hunter and the third best selling Monster Hunter title yet. The only region it did poorly in compared to Freedom Unite and Freedom 2 is Japan, and both those titles are portable titles. It may not be a big hit compared to big third party hits on 360 or PS3, but to suggest Tri has performed poorly is a flimsy suggestion at best, and becomes absurd when you suggest it has sold poorly compared to the rest of the series.


Let's not let facts interfere with opinions now.



Pre-order limited edition Blue Slime Condoms

Around the Network
billsalias on 26 September 2010
Qays said:
billsalias said:
Qays said:

But why aren't third party games on the Wii good enough? They're plenty good on other consoles.


This is the question. For me the weakness in third party titles has been the controls. They often seem to have designed the game, and more importantly the interactions, the same way they always have then tried to map the game to the wiimote. For the most part I find the wiimote inferior to a tradition controller for traditional games, as you would expect, so you really cannot win doing this. No matter how much time you spend trying to make the controls work they will always be poor because you designed the game with that traditional controller in mind.

This has caused a cycle. Third parties try releasing a game on the Wii to see how it goes, they use the same designers, developers and process they use building their PS/Xbox games. Because they either did not try to adjust their thinking or simply failed because it was their first attempt and it not trivial the game is not great. The sales reflect the quality of the game, because as the OP says core gamers look at reviews and play demos before they buy. The developer is not inspired by these sales to invest in focusing enough attention on the Wii to get the experience required to doa  good job so the cycle repeats.

This same problem has occured with each new generation to some extent, especiall when new controls are introduced (analog sticks, triggers, etc) but the developers push through it. I think the two reasons this generation is different is because for the first time you can do well without supporting the first place console and the second and third place consoles are comparable but very different from the leader. This means developers have to chose between two equals sized markets (HD vs Wii) where one (Wii) requires a lot of learning and new risks with uncertain rewards and the other (HD) is simply a bigger version of what you have done for years.

Executive summary: 3rd parties underperform on the Wii because they are not trying hard enough and they are not trying hard enough because they are afraid of the risk and the change.

I think this is a valuable analysis. But what about a game like MH3? It didn't try to implement any waggly nonsense and by all accounts it was a very good game. But its sales were very bad by the standards of the series and, indeed, pretty bad by the standards of big-name third-party games on the HD twins. And the "Nintendo outcompeted it" explanation doesn't hold water here, for obvious reasons, unless the suggestion is that a several-years-old Zelda game has permanently stifled all desire for action RPGs on the Wii.

We might be able to blame the poor performance of a lot of Wii third-party core games on the fact that they weren't all that good, but even good games seem to underperform.

I think the cause of that is simple prejudice.


For me the early disappointments set up a pattern of not even looking to the Wii for that type of game.  I also have a 360 and have more games then I have time to play on that so there is nothing really pulling me to give even well reviewed core Wii games a chance. In my house the systems have fallen into distinct roles, wii comes out for larger groups and the kids then 360 comes out for smaller groups and dad's solo game time. I am not saying this pattern is right or fair, but it did form for a reason and now there is inertia for me in things like where the systems are setup and what controller I am used to for a given type of game.



greenmedic88 on 26 September 2010
RolStoppable said:
greenmedic88 said:

Video games in general were almost exclusively a core experience about 3 generations back. There really wasn't an "expanded audience" to speak of.

I'd argue that it was the original Playstation that began the process of expanding the general audience. First console to sell over 100m units? The core video game market didn't expand that much over one generation it's pretty safe to say.

It's not that all those old 8 bit games are now "casual" games (many of those old 8 bit games are as hard core as ever in terms of hair pulling difficulty), they're simply viewed from a different perspective. Nostalgia for those who originally lived them when they were new, and maybe curiousity for those who didn't. They won't spend hours perfecting speed runs to post on YouTube, but they've probably played a lot of the old classics here and there.

Either way, it's still possible to have a game that appeals to both the expanded and core audiences. It's just a delicate balancing act that very few developers are able to do successfully aside from Nintendo.

The biggest problem with third party games on the Wii may simply just be an issue of publishers not wanting to use their A list development teams, or more specifically, spend AAA budgets on core games that the general Wii audience has shown time and time again that they just aren't interested in buying.

The core audience on the Wii (to include those who don't also own a PS3, or 360 or gaming PC) is almost definitely smaller than that on other platforms, so unless a developer can make a title with crossover appeal, they're not likely to see sales figures change dramatically in direct proportion to how much money, time and effort they spend.

Know the market for your product and choose appropriately where you want to sell it. The Halo franchise or GTA franchise simply wouldn't make the same numbers that they do on other platforms if they were "Wii exclusives."

The PlayStation wasn't so much expanding the general audience, it was more of a global expansion. The majority of its growth over the NES comes from selling to the whole of Europe as well as some other countries. If you can sell video games to kids and teenagers in America and the UK, it's not hard to do the same in mainland Europe, especially with the distribution network Sony already had in place due to their electronics.

You say that the Wii audience has shown time and time again that they aren't interested in buying AAA third party games, but that claim can't be backed up. For one, there hardly are any AAA third party games on the Wii and two, those that are have done well (Monster Hunter 3 and, if being generous, Red Steel was also AAA).

It's downright ridiculous to suggest that people aren't interested in AAA games when those games have never been made. You might as well say that the PS3 audience isn't as interested in Gran Turismo as it used to be in the previous two generations, because after all, the best selling GT on the PS3 hasn't even sold half as much as GT4.

Of course people are interested in them, regardless of platform. That's kind of a "duh and or Hola" comment. That's not the issue. If you can sell more copies of a franchise like Halo or GTA on the Xbox, there's not much financial sense in trying to get the same kind of sales figures on the Wii. It just won't happen.

If they do a port, they'll spend the appropriate amount of time and money relative to what they project sales to be. And that's not even going into the limitations of the Wii hardware itself. You can either redesign a game from the ground up (costly), or you end up with something like Chop 'til you Drop.

Part of your problem with this mythical "AAA" label is that if a game doesn't sell, the audience didn't like it regardless of what efforts a developer put into it or how much they spent, in proportion to how well the game sold, then by definition, it's not an "AAA" title. So the Wii doesn't get any (or next to no) third party "AAA" titles by that definition.

It's like you're suggesting if someone just spends enough and comes up with something brilliant and original that can only be done on the Wii, then they'll have an "AAA" title that sees appropriate sales that exceed projections. That's really what it sounds like. If it were that easy to catch lighting in a bottle, everyone would be doing it.

Don't think for a second that any third party developer wouldn't like to get a high profile title, regardless of platform, that nets millions.



Qays on 26 September 2010

So bigtime corporate executives are purposefully sabotaging their companies' profits en masse? That doesn't sound plausible at all.



greenmedic88 on 26 September 2010
RolStoppable said:

What makes more financial sense? Building a game (but not a spinoff) from an established IP from the ground up for Wii or doing the same with a new IP? I would say the former and I suppose you would agree with that. We see third parties doing the opposite though.

I am not using a mythical AAA label, I am going by its real definition: high production values and marketing campaign, in other words a company's flagship game (or one of several). That is a AAA game. I don't have to bend the truth here, it's you who is putting words in my mouth. Go ahead and make a full list of AAA third party games and analyse their sales. It won't take long, because there hardly are any games that fit the AAA definition.

There's one good reason why a third party publisher wouldn't want to make a high profile title for the Wii: It would mean to admit on being wrong on betting the farm on the HD consoles at the beginning of this generation. That could mean getting removed from the company for poor management decisions. But if a Wii game is set up for failure, so that it doesn't sell, then the company's head can say that he made the right decision by fully banking on the 360 and PS3.

Most people just boil it down to metrics ratings (metacritic, etc.), which doesn't really tell the whole story, but there isn't any objective way to measure high production values and marketing. It's relative. AAA production values, budget and marketing don't guarantee AAA ratings and more importantly (to the publisher and developer) AAA sales.

By that definition, most developers can never make an AAA title simply because they aren't under the umbrella of a larger company like Nintendo or Activision. They simply won't have the money to do "AAA marketing" whatever that means. $20 million? $40 million? $60 million? Or does it scale in proportion to the budget?

Do AAA budget scales appropriately too? No AAA titles for under $20 million? $40 million? $60 million?

You seem to be under the impression that company heads are deliberately making games that undercut projections so they can say "third party games don't sell on the Wii." That's stretching things into a wacky, conspiratorial persecution complex, even for a Nintendo Fan.

If that were the case, developers don't need an excuse to not develop for the Wii (like Valve), they just acknowledge their games aren't suitable for the platform and skip the crappy port and or lame spin off.



Around the Network
Beuli2 on 26 September 2010
Qays said:

So bigtime corporate executives are purposefully sabotaging their companies' profits en masse? That doesn't sound plausible at all.


Actually it does. Plus it makes a good movie.



Above: still the best game of the year.

Pyro as Bill on 26 September 2010
Qays said:

So bigtime corporate executives are purposefully sabotaging their companies' profits en masse? That doesn't sound plausible at all.


What followed became one of the biggest secrets in video game history: EA built a "Montana" game for Sega that was designed to compete with "Madden." Sort of.

"We made sure it was totally inferior," Hawkins said.

Source:http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=100805/madden



Nov 2016 - NES outsells PS1 (JP)

Don't Play Stationary 4 ever. Switch!

Gilgamesh on 26 September 2010

Nintendo gamers are more hardcore then we thought, that's why third party is practically non existent on the Wii. Let me explain.

For the last two generation (N64, Gamecube) Nintendo gamers have been playing nothing but the best games on them systems which consist of mostly Nintendo's first party games, since all the 3rd party games were going to the PSOne and PS2. So there just doing what they have been doing for the last two generations, they know that Nintendo's first party games are nothing but the best for them so they know they wont be disappointed. They're just hesitant to jump into the pool of 3rd party games when first party is all they've been playing for the last 15 years.

Thats my hypothesis.



Joelcool7 on 26 September 2010

I think the demographics are why third party games don't sell. Firstly casual games do sell JustDance , Cooking Mama etc...etc... Games like Carnival Games also sell crap loads. Its the audience, the Wii is home to mostly casual gamers and not the same hardcore demographic found on the 360 and PS3. Even getting 2% of this casual market to buy a hardcore title is nearly impossible.

I'll point to the Conduit as the perfect example. The title had more hype then most Nintendo titles. It was advertised on Spike and other adult networks. In mens magazines etc...etc... the game wasn't the greatest but that shouldn't have stopped it from selling. Yet more then a year after it launched and it hasn't broken the 300,000 mark.

Fact is casuals will only buy casual games and Nintendo first party titles have nostalga attached to them so these older non-gamers are more willing to pick up a title they have heard about. Mario is a perfect example, Mario is as well known as Mickey Mouse. People will always buy Mario games, a true test will be whether Kirby can acheive multi-million sales.

In the end Nintendo fans and casuals dominate the Wii and as such only casual and Nintendo games will sell. All the hardcore gamers own 360/PS3's and will likely buy their hardcore games on those systems!



-JC7

"In God We Trust - In Games We Play " - Joel Reimer

 

greenmedic88 on 26 September 2010
RolStoppable said:

Metacritic has nothing to do with AAA. But anyway, it's not that hard to see which Wii games have high production values, neither is it really hard to determine which games had a rather big marketing campaign. It's not as much guesswork as it sounds at first, especially when it comes to Wii games. If a company didn't push its game hard, then it certainly isn't a AAA game, because these expensive games are supposed to bring in the big money.

Valve is a horrible example, because as a PC developer they were never reliant on consoles anyway. But publishers whose bread and butter is the console market have to answer investors questions why they don't support the Wii which happened to be the fastest selling console in history. And that a time when the consoles that those third party publishers supported were struggling.

Valve is relevant. If they believed there was money to be made in Wii games or ports (with the former being more likely than the latter), enough to make diverting resources to a Wii development team, they would. They're savvy.

They were savvy enough to flip flop on the PS3 and eat a lot of crow in the process when they saw the market potential hit a certain point.

Do you really think every game developer and publisher has to answer to the investors (the board of the directors; investors/common stock holders generally have minimal say) in how they divert their creative resources? They don't. That would be like suggesting that Bungie, now that they're an independent developer again should or courld be strong armed by investors into developing their next blockbuster for the Wii because of the "great commercial potential" the platform presents for their games.

As for the whole marketing issue, that always seems to be the mantra whenever a hot, anticipated title doesn't hit the sales projections predicted by fans rather than the companies who actually developed the games, regardless of platform.